|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jun 6th, 2006 09:40 AM | |||
| executioneer | drunk again, huh | ||
| Jun 6th, 2006 08:22 AM | |||
| Kulturkampf | Hey Mr. 9 to FIVE YOU SUCKS!!! | ||
| Jun 5th, 2006 06:04 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
I think not everything is a scandal coming from the White House. I don't think there's necessarily anything altruistic about it, I just think less court cases involving disgruntled government employees (who ever heard of those?) are what they want. Quote:
|
||
| Jun 1st, 2006 10:43 AM | |||
| Preechr | 42 | ||
| Jun 1st, 2006 07:33 AM | |||
| El Blanco | Just out of curiosity, how often do whistle blowers return to their old jobs anyway? | ||
| May 31st, 2006 08:33 PM | |||
| mburbank |
Well, you can leak to the press, but thgat's illega;, and it's recently been called treason, which if meant literally is a federal offense and van carry the death penalty. Not that I think it's anything more than hyperbole, I just think it's stupid hyperbole. Kevin, you honestly and asincerely think the motive is to reduce frivilous lawsuits? Outside of being devils advocate and porvocative and all, you think that's the clean clear altruistic motive? Not to stray too far off topic, but how is it you're certain Murtha had only motives of personal agrandizement, but this measure is all as it's purported to be and has no ulterior motives along the lines of not wanting anything on the record about internal failure in agencies like FEMA, Homeland security, etc, etc, etc? It seems to me you are.... uneven with your benefit of the doubt, like some sort of self hating closet liberal. That was hyperbbole, by the way. Just playing devils advocate. |
||
| May 31st, 2006 04:56 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
A. Government workers have unions that can assist with their wages. The teachers unions in some states are incredibly powerful. B. I'm guessing scandals can be exposed in other ways, rather than simply complaining about it to the scandalous. |
||
| May 31st, 2006 04:54 PM | |||
| imported_I, fuzzbot. |
Quote:
|
||
| May 31st, 2006 04:47 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
There's nothing stopping you from going outside the agency to complain. Every government agency, be it the county DMV or the U.S. Congress, has internal complaint services and auditing practices. The motive behind this is to stop every internal dispute from ending up in federal court every time it comes up, not to stifle free speech. I see the merit in that, but I think it raises potential problems. |
||
| May 31st, 2006 04:42 PM | |||
| imported_I, fuzzbot. |
So people breaking the law or doing illegal things can basically get away with it. If no one can bring it up, then how can it go punished? |
||
| May 31st, 2006 04:35 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I think the case is problematic, although it has always been our policy that public workers can't lobby the government on the job if their employer is the government. I don't see this as stifling free speech the way some might, although i'd rather see public employees maintain the freedom to expose internal problems. And seriously, keep it on point. One more warning. |
||
| May 31st, 2006 04:31 PM | |||
| imported_I, fuzzbot. | No probz, but please tell us your opinion on this. How does this make you feel as a strong and brave American? Would you limit your critical opinions for the sake of your country? | ||
| May 31st, 2006 04:29 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Okay, keep your man-crushing in the Murtha thread. Thanks. | ||
| May 31st, 2006 04:28 PM | |||
| imported_I, fuzzbot. | Kevin will be furious at this - his own country is beginning to remsemble that of an Arab's! | ||
| May 31st, 2006 04:16 PM | |||
| Chojin | The way this effects teachers in public schools is probably the worst of the short-term effects of this. But yeah, the long-term effect is that you can dismiss the first amendment in any situation now with this case as a precedent. | ||
| May 31st, 2006 01:52 PM | |||
| davinxtk |
did i tell you so yet? or do i still have to wait? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed High court curbs free-speech rights of public workers on the job By David G. Savage Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times Published May 31, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court restricted the free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees Tuesday, ruling that the 1st Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining to their managers about possible wrongdoing. Although government employees have the same rights as other citizens to speak out on controversies of the day, they do not have the right to speak freely inside their offices on matters related to "their official duties," the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision. "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, rejecting a lawsuit brought by a Los Angeles County prosecutor. Lawyers for government whistle-blowers denounced the ruling as a major setback. "In an era of excessive government secrecy, the court has made it easier to engage in a government cover-up by discouraging internal whistle-blowing," said Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. However, lawyers for city and state agencies said the decision will prevent routine internal workplace disputes from becoming federal court cases. The decision threw out most of a lawsuit filed by Deputy District Atty. Richard Ceballos, who said he was disciplined after he wrote memos alleging that a police officer may have lied to obtain a search warrant. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed he was entitled to a trial on his lawsuit because he had spoken on a "matter of public concern." But the Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday. "The 1st Amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employee's expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities," Kennedy said. The court's newest justice, Samuel Alito, cast a crucial vote to form the pro-government majority. In October, the justices first heard the case, but they were apparently split 4-4 when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down in February. Also joining Kennedy were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Because Tuesday's decision interprets the 1st Amendment, it applies to governments at all levels, including federal and states agencies, public hospitals and public schools and colleges. The dissenters said they would have left the courthouse door open to such 1st Amendment suits. "I would hold that private and public interest in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake" in running an efficient office, said Justice David Souter.[/url] |
||
